Hillary Clinton is a member of the globalist elite and is heavily influenced by Wall Street, the Saudis, and the neocons.

Hillary Clinton has a little girl's conception of military action. "We came, we saw, he died."

Hillary Clinton has always shown a tendency to overcompensate to prove how tough and ruthless she is.

Hillary Clinton doesn't negotiate, she dictates.

Donald Trump is not a member of the globalist elite.

Donald Trump has openly expressed his desire to avoid war with Russia.

Donald Trump prides himself on negotiation, not confrontation.

The USA is already engaged in a war-by-proxy with Russia in Syria.

The globalist elite is already waging economic war on Russia.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO

You don't want Ukraine. You don't want war with the USA. You prefer to have an opponent like Donald Trump with whom you know you can negotiate to an enemy like Hillary Clinton with whom you cannot. Now consider the following possibilities:

The neocons are actively pushing for war with Russia in order to force Assad out of Syria

Ukraine will join NATO under a Hillary administration.

Wall Street needs some sort of major global event to pop the current asset bubble.

Also, Russia has made it very clear that they will never accept Ukraine in NATO, but the US has blatantly ignored every Russian warning and instead engaged in a series of provocative steps in Ukraine, in the Baltics, and in Poland.

If you were Vladimir Putin and you expect that a Hillary Clinton administration will make war with the USA inevitable, would it not logically make sense to start the conflict while there is still a chance to totally transform the shape of the US election? Right now, Trump is in trouble because the media is relentlessly away pounding on a few remarks about women from more than a decade ago and the public awareness of the war-by-proxy between Russia and the USA is totally nonexistent.

But if Russia invades Ukraine, takes Kiev, and scares the pants off the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe alike, that will completely transform the election picture. For all her bellicosity, no one can take Hillary Clinton seriously as a war president, particularly anyone in the military after Benghazi.

So, are there any signs that Putin might be in a position to invade Ukraine on short notice?

"As many as 40,000 Russian troops are massing on the country’s border with Ukraine – prompting fears of a new military invasion. Among the units deployed to the area are armoured vehicles, tanks and fighter jets." (August 2016)

"Russia has amassed some 100,000 soldiers in occupied Crimea and Donbas as well as along the eastern border with Ukraine." (October 2016)

"Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year."

"Amid escalating U.S.-Russia tensions, the Russian military said Tuesday it will co-operate with China on efforts to fend off a threat posed by the U.S. missile defence program."

"At the end of last week, Latvia identified several Russian planes near its borders: Su-24 tactical bombers, Su-27 multipurpose fighters and an An-26 military transport plane. Russia also conducts military drills near Latvian land border. Two airborne divisions – 76th and 98th – take part in joint exercises with elements of full-fledged combat activities."

Now, I'm not predicting Russia is going to invade Ukraine. I'm not in any contact with anyone on the ground or in Russian circles.. I am merely observing that logic suggests Putin should invade Ukraine before the US election if it seems likely to him that Hillary is going to win it. The third debate is October 20th. Barring Donald Trump turning things between now and then, which looks increasingly unlikely given the 24-7 media assault, logic would dictate that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will begin the weekend after next, most likely on the morning of October 23rd.

I don't know whether Putin will dare to roll the dice on such a potentially dangerous gamble, particularly because it is clear that Russia doesn't want Ukraine. But with the neocons relentlessly pressing for war with Russia, the Russian president would be better off starting a regional war now in the hopes of avoiding a global one than holding off and having it forced upon him in one or two years time. And aside from Duerte, Vladimir Putin is the one world leader who might have the steel to think through the logic and grasp the adder.

273 Comments:

The calculus could be different; Putin may presume that the proxy-war will escalate, and he may be preparing for the endgame. Damaging Mr. Trump by creating blowback in favor of Sec. Clinton could put Sec. Clinton in the White House, where she will be unable to lead a serious military effort or marshal domestic resources and bring them to bear for a major military campaign.

The full 24/7 media narrative against Mr. Trump regarding Russia may be intended. Putin is a man who knows exactly how the media can work to amplify messages. There's no reason to think he's not cunning enough to understand how US media could be manipulated to favor Sec. Clinton.

Damaging Mr. Trump by creating blowback in favor of Sec. Clinton could put Sec. Clinton in the White House, where she will be unable to lead a serious military effort or marshal domestic resources and bring them to bear for a major military campaign.

That doesn't work. Hillary is dangerous because she thinks war is a matter of ordering the soldiers to win and looking stern. She won't negotiate a reasonable settlement. Trump will.

Putin would love to be able to negotiate a withdrawal from Ukraine after taking Kiev and getting rid of the neocon pets there. Trump would do it. Hillary would vow to take Moscow.

I hope I'm not just being an ass here, but you sound like you're no longer confident in a Trump victory, let alone a Trumpslide.

No, I'm not. I've said from the beginning that the trend required a constant movement in a certain pattern in the polls. That trend broke conclusively this week, and even reversed.

While it's certainly possible that the polls are simply beyond fake now, that hasn't been the case in the past. Trump may still win. There may even be a Trumpslide for one reason or another. But the smooth path to Trumpslide I anticipated no longer exists.

In fact, it was thinking about how Europeans should be praying for a Trump victory that got me thinking about how this looks from Putin's perspective. If he a) thinks Hillary will win, and b) thinks Hillary will bring Ukraine into NATO, then he has to act on Ukraine before she is elected.

Based on the troop movements, he figured that out in July, at the latest.

I take it as a given that if there is something Russia wants to do anyway they should do it before the new president gets in office. Hillary is a bad business, andTrump might not be all that easy to deal with either. That may be what is going on in Syria right now. They are risking a wider war to wrap things up.

If Russia got more aggressive it would only confirm Hillary's hard line and help her get elected.

The calculation that concerns me is how likely Russia would be to go nuclear if push comes to shove. We have a history of bad faith dealing so realistically they can not make a deal with us. And if they have come to believe that we are going to push and push and push and never quit, they may choose a nuclear confrontation earlier rather than later. So, if they nuke a carrier group, what do we do? If they use a tactical nuke in Syria, what do we do? Should that happen I would choose almost anybody but Hillary. The women is vengeful, has a broader than usual mean streak, has shown a disregard for human life, and has a history of bad decision making.

I see Russia's current policy as very patient and defensive, making no risky move. I don't see the big bear rushing in such a gamble

Agreed. But consider Syria. That was the same sort of risky gamble, it was far more difficult logistically, and it worked. I'd estimate Russia can take Kiev in 10-14 days. And note that I wrote that before I looked it up and discovered Putin said in 2014 that he can do it in two weeks.

I don't actually watch the MSM, but I get the impression 2nd hand that they are starting to lay off the tape stuff recently. And wikileaks seems to be gaining some steam. The biggest concern is the RNC ground game sabotaging Trump.

Also, last election (Romney) didn't you say you were going to completely be out of the prediction game from then on? I'm not trying to ankle bite on the issue, but I've been a little surprised at your confidence in making predictions this election cycle.

The wild card in that scenario is Obama. His foreign policy has been inconsistent to say the least. If Putin makes a move Obama may step aside or may go full war. I think he just wants to go play golf, but his administration may call the shot on this one.

"As many as 40,000 Russian troops are massing on the country’s border with Ukraine – prompting fears of a new military invasion. Among the units deployed to the area are armoured vehicles, tanks and fighter jets." (August 2016)"Russia has amassed some 100,000 soldiers in occupied Crimea and Donbas as well as along the eastern border with Ukraine."

there have been constant reports of troops and armor massing on the border with Ukraine ever since the Maidan revolution.

A Russian invasion isn't going to help Trump. Negotiation will be off the table. You vote for Trump to avoid war. Trump will play tough guy to Putin. He won't negotiation the surrender of the US. He needs to start a military offensive to negotiate from strength.

I suspect an invasion will help Clinton since she relishes sounding tough and the result, though catastrophic, won't affect her at all from "her" constituents. She also gains new refugees. A win win.

If Putin wants to help Trump, he needs to make Clinton's foreign policy a bigger mess, but we have less a month to do this. So too late.

European Reassurance Initiative funding is capped at FY16 levels ~700M due to no budget. It was due to increase to 3.7B in FY17. That is funding the added heavy brigade as well as all the US operations in Baltic and Black Seas.

A Russian invasion isn't going to help Trump. Negotiation will be off the table. You vote for Trump to avoid war. Trump will play tough guy to Putin. He won't negotiation the surrender of the US. He needs to start a military offensive to negotiate from strength.

You're missing the point. War with Ukraine is NOT war with the USA.

I suspect an invasion will help Clinton since she relishes sounding tough and the result, though catastrophic, won't affect her at all from "her" constituents. She also gains new refugees. A win win.

You're utterly wrong. The idea of Hillary leading the USA into war against Russia will scare half her female voters into voting for Trump.

There's evidence coming out about media collusion on behalf of Hillary. Evidence of upcoming voter fraud is also coming out. This is a full court press for Hillary. Win by any means.

If Putin acts prior to the election, he risks widening the conflict based on an uncertainty. This is how Nations stumble into war. Obama would be center-stage, not Trump or Hillary. The media would hype against Russia.

Imagine Hillary saying, "Russia has shown it's desire for war. Now is not a time for negotiation. Now is not the time for Trump. America doesn't need a Chamberlain."

The blunder into war scenario is that Hillary orders air superiority in Syria, as she said she would do in the debate. Next up Russia either has to back down or we discover how good their air defenses are. If they can not stop our air force, we would win a conventional war because we can outspend them several times over.

So, allowing that they can not stop our air force as a realistic possibility, what next? The only two choices are to back down and further weaken their strategic position against an enemy that has shown bad faith, or (credibly) threaten to go nuclear with a first hit somewhere. In Syria or against our forces.

Vox, you're starting to worry me. Are you losing confidence in the Trumpslide?

I'm not sure how to read the foreign policy situation. The Obama regime clearly has no idea what it's doing, or why. I agree with you that Hillary Clinton is very likely to continue with a policy that is both aggressive and directionless...Obamaism on steroids.

The question for Putin is whether that is better for Russia than a Trump Administration that is militarily stronger, but somewhat more focused.

But there is another factor...Putin himself. He isn't a Czar with a son to inherit the throne, and a motivation to play a long game. His clock is ticking, and I would not be surprised to see him do something aggressive in the Baltics.

If Putin acts prior to the election, he risks widening the conflict based on an uncertainty. This is how Nations stumble into war. Obama would be center-stage, not Trump or Hillary. The media would hype against Russia.

Your perspective is false and US-centric. Russia is already engaged in two wars-by-proxy against the USA. You guys have no idea how serious it is being taken over here. Putin would be widening the conflict based on a high probability.

Are you forgetting who overthrew the government of Ukraine in the first place? Putin hasn't.

Putin doesn't seem to suffer from the "Safest to do nothing " delusion that afflicts a lot of politicians, so I'd say he's thought about it. He didn't hesitate over Crimea so if it doesn't happen it's because he calculated it wouldn't help.

Of course he could be wrong but that's the problem; we only have the one planet and one timeline. We don't get a control group when it comes to making predictions.

If Putin does do a Ukraine invasion or intervention soon, it would likely be in the style of Crimea, meaning that Putin and the rest of the Russian leadership would bank on taking Ukraine before it can take steps under a likely Clinton presidency to join NATO/EU. Whether it would be an all-out invasion or an internal coup of some kind is hard to tell. It might be both; for example (from the Russian perspective): "we are intervening now to protect our compatriots in Russia now protesting for democratic rights" after some kind of unrest/demonstrations similar to what happened in the Donbass in 2013/2014.

I've had the same feeling about Russia if they are going to make a move it has to be so blunt and hard that it will scare the european and american electorates into chosing doves and protest in the street, like they did for the US Iraq invasion, times two.

Something like a small nuclear strike in Syria with Syrian permission would also work, say on Raqqa or Dabiq.

Something the west can't escalate against other than go to full nuclear war.

Such a gamble could give Obama indefinite presidency, he simply plays the state of emergency card and calls off the elections till peacetime which as we all know will never come. What we are really talking about in my view is when the tribulation will begin and it seems to me whomever is at the helm of the U.S. will indicate this. A trumpslide could stave off the tribulation by many more years than the 4/8 that he serves he could change the whole attitude of the west he is literally our only hope from falling into complete demoralization.

The MSM is literally stopping at nothing to cover for Hillary. She had another eye-crossing episode on her plane right after the last debate and they visually altered her eye. Take the time to view the proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FODnzZRy784

New moon coming the end of the month too.

As to the election, Hillary is still having smaller crowds. If all you hear and see is on the MSM propaganda edits and lying polls, then you would conclude that Trump may not get elected, but evidence on the ground seems to say otherwise.

Remember that Putin doesn't want Ukraine, so he doesn't have to digest it. He just has to hold it two weeks, and can scorch the earth while he's doing it. Then, when the election is over, he can "accede" to world pressure and hand a broken, broke Ukraine back to the Ukrainians, rewarding Trump if he wins and appeasing Hillary if she wins.

VD wrote:If Russia got more aggressive it would only confirm Hillary's hard line and help her get elected.

Women are not going to elect a female wartime president. And the military HATES her.

From the standpoint of the election it matters little what the military thinks.

A major war would shift attention away from the candidates and toward the war, and Hillary owns the press. Allowing that they are capable of minimal learning, they would simply stop covering Trump, giving Hillary lots of opportunity to grandstand.

My understanding of Game theory is from playing Poker. I'm probably miles off but i understand it as if 9 players are at a table, all playing the same strategy with the same skill level, then they theoretically break even. If a player deviates from the standard strategy then there are only 2 results likely:either he accumulates chips exponentially or he busts quickly. It's sort of the cycling pack in the tour de france grinding down the rider who tries to charge ahead.I was making this analogy with Trump during the primary. Not sure how it applies to the scenario you're discussing here. Could you elaborate or perhaps correct where i'm getting it wrong?

You're assuming of course that the media in the US would even bother to report it!There has been fighting going on in the Ukraine for months now (I follow someone who lives there on another site and they're constantly complaining lately about the missile attacks, shelling, etc). And the media has been -ignoring- it here for the last two months.

This all assumes that Russia doesn't actually have this super EMP weapon that we keep reading about. If they have the ability to shut everything here off with one fell swoop, all of the sudden war with the US doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

@42 I think that is a likely scenario. Break it and retreat, and in the meantime make our allies shit their pants. Trump can pivot against Putin while painting Obama/Clinton as incompetents who allowed it to progress to this point. If that happenns Trump could Goldwater Hillary. He should have some ads in his back pocket for that occasion.

As to the election, Hillary is still having smaller crowds. If all you hear and see is on the MSM propaganda edits and lying polls, then you would conclude that Trump may not get elected, but evidence on the ground seems to say otherwise.

I haven't thrown in the towel on Trump, it just does not look as good to me. The thing is, zealous supporters on the right is not as good as a broad base of lukewarm supporters. Going all out for your natural base tends to lose elections. Cucksertives are in office because they got elected. Alas...

The NBC/WSJ poll that came out yesterday is phony. It massively oversamples Dems, undersamples GOP, and undersamples independents. It was run by a paid Clinton hack who received over $200k from her campaign in September alone. According to Bill Mitchell, the sample of voters in that poll voted for Obama +13.

The Russian, with some connections in Moscow, that runs the warnewsupdates blog is getting pretty worried about where this is all heading. Basically saying it is more dangerous now than during the cold war as the USA seems to know longer realise there are red lines and the response to those red lines being crossed will be nuclear.

It is probably an stupid idea on my part but a curve ball could be Putin dropping a small tactical nuke on some ISIS desert rats nearby where the US bombed the SAA. Everyone hates ISIS and it would certainly get the public's attention from pussy to nuclear war.

It is certainly reasonable to think that this scenario is one that Putin, his Ministers and the Russian General Staff are considering.

Putin is a calm and thoughtful statesman; but not afraid to take decisive action. Also his judgment on when and how much to act has been nearly flawless, thus far.

I wonder if he has sent any feelers towards Poland, concerning giving them Galicia(Lvov) back? That could disrupt a European response. Also Hungary has some traditional claims to some Western Ukraine territory.

Poroshenko has to know his days are numbered; perhaps Russia could offer him a deal in return for providing Russia with a plausible casus belli.

That would allow Europe to wash its hands of whole mess. Much to consider.

As a socionomist I watch the markets as a barometer of social mood. Uptrending social mood favors the incumbent (Clinton.) Stocks have gone sideways for a month, during which Trump largely moved ahead, but the balance of probability at this moment favors a rally to emerge in the next week or two, moving major indices to all time highs. This would be very favorable to Clinton, which troubles me bad.

If Clinton is elected, and if the posited stock surge to new highs is also the FINAL wave up (also part of the "hope" forecast), then her presidency will be much like Nixon's second term: Markets rallied into the election, so he returned to office, and then plunged shortly thereafter, resulting in public attention to scandals that are dwarfed by dozens of open acts of malfeasance and criminality by Clinton.

Big Downside? If impeaching Obama was bad because of who would replace him, I can think of few people on Planet Earth worse than GayPedoFace Kaine.

tl;dr if markets are rallying Clinton is highly favored and the public will ignore the accumulating mountain of evidence of Clinton crime, GOP calumny, media collusion and pervasive election fraud. The bitch needs to fall face down on live TV and suffer a fatal aneurysm for social mood not to matter.

We are standing on the threshold of disaster. The establishment sees a major war as the only way it can maintain its hold on power in the face of a rapidly deteriorating world economy. I believe that the bi-partisan neoconservative maniacs who run US defense and foreign policy plan to initiate hostilities with Russia while Obama is still in office, in all probability before the election. These geniuses do not understand that Putin sees them as an existential threat to Russia and he will not back down. They believe (incorrectly) that the US will easily win a war with Russia, up to and including a nuclear war, and that, in any case, the American people would rally around any President during wartime. The MSM will double down on Hillary's vast "experience" in foreign affairs and, sadly, the vast majority of the US population is totally ignorant of the reality of US behavior in the world and far too stupid to understand that Russia is not the aggressor in either Syria or the Ukraine (the US fills that role). I see no way that war can be prevented.

You're assuming of course that the media in the US would even bother to report it! There has been fighting going on in the Ukraine for months...

Russian tanks in Kiev would have Euro media screaming in a way that de facto civil war in eastern Ukraine doesnt. And if BBC goes that way no way does US media pretend it's not happening even for Hillary's sake.

They push it as why Trump can't win because he'll support Putin, sure. But they can't ignore.

"Women are not going to elect a female wartime president. And the military HATES her."

That may have been true some 10 years ago, but today women are the target of constant miscegenation propaganda and feminism. Most of the people who are actively seeking open borders are women.They have no more loyalty to their country than they do their own men, as they will be quick to tell you are not their men or their country just as they do not belong to their men or their country since they are no-ones property.Happened in Sweden when Swedish men went out to protect women who were getting raped, and Sweden is a few years behind the USA when it comes to cultural marxism.

Zundfolge wrote:This all assumes that Russia doesn't actually have this super EMP weapon that we keep reading about. If they have the ability to shut everything here off with one fell swoop, all of the sudden war with the US doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

I doubt this is what you are thinking of but the ultimate EMP weapon is an EMP nuke. Given the way our military is run, I would imagine a battlefield EMP nuke would shut us down for a while, and at the same time making a nuclear response by us not mandatory.

I was listening to some local AM radio station this morning during my drive to work.

As soon as politics came up, the host immediately started talking about the Trump tape. No Wikileaks. No Hiliary. Just the same old Churchian, White Knight line: "guys talk crude sometimes, but I've never talked that crude."

F*ck me! These wimps would rather piss it away instead of forgiving someone for. TEN YEAR OLD PRIVATE conversation.

TLM wrote:The only way Hillary is winning is with massive voter fraud, election rigging.

As I have pointed out before, massive voter fraud has been the name of the game in the Banana Empire for some years. The alleged "opposition" party is literally abiding by a court order to not oppose it which was imposed by a blackrobe in 1983. So, yes, it's entirely possible that massive vote fraud with illegal aliens, felons, multiple votes and dead voters will be enough to ensure the Lizard Queen's ascension. It's certainly obvious by now that the entire Gay Old Pedobear crowd has either openly or tacitly endorsed Clinton.

It is highly unlikely that there is a political fix to this problem. Putin's possible gambit is very risky indeed and there's no guarantee that even a hot, ongoing war would work for Trump.

"It always makes sense to start war on your terms once you've determined war cannot be avoided."

First mover advantage.Fight on terrain of your choosing.Initiative.Clear objective.

This last is interesting. Would the objective be an in-and-out smash of leadership, then leave Ukraine? Arm anti-fascist militias and let them fight for their country ala Donbas?This would be more acceptable and less risky than an out and out occupation, and would allow for a buffer state creation on the east as the west tries to seize western ukraine.

It doesn't take a strategic genius to understand that the US -- like any empire -- is weakest during a succession. Thus, it is in the interest of all our imperial opponents to grab right now and present the next president an unfavorable fait accompli.

Further, I'm sure that the Kremlin has psychological models of both Clinton and Trump. Both people, I think are very predictable in their behaviors. Clinton appears to be more "in control" and Trump appears to be more "unpredictable" but these are only superficial.

Trump, the businessman, shows bluster and recklessness, but is in fact a rational and canny deal maker.

Clinton, while showing a controlled, calm face (most of the time) is really driven by her lizard brain and has a well-documented (if not widely known) volcanic temper. She has spent a great deal of her life overcompensating for her gender.

She is by far the more reckless, ruthless and dangerous (to everyone, really) of the two.

I can't pretend to understand Putin's thinking; however, Russia's strategic interests are clear -- buffer zones from hostile powers in all directions, warm-water ports in the West, South and East, no dominant power in Europe, South Asia or East Asia that can threaten their heartland or warm-water ports.

Applying those strategic interests to the current map -- Russia wants to control the Black Sea ports and have defensible land access to Crimea; wants to move Turkey into its sphere of influence and restore Syria to its indirect control. It wants to push Ukraine back into its sphere and use it as a neutral buffer against the US and Nato. The Baltic States are a touchier issue, but ideally they want those in their sphere again as well.

I'm watching the Baltic situation more closely than the Ukrainian situation.

WRT the Ukraine, it should always be remembered that the Crimea and East Ukraine is NOT historically part of Ukraine. It was grafted onto the Ukranian SSR by Stalin for administrative convenience. Which is part of why Putin wants it back...it's historic Russian war booty from the 1700s. And grabbing it does not eradicate the Ukraine as an independent country.

The Baltic States are another matter. They aren't that big, if Russia grabs one, they'll grab all of it...and they are NATO members. This has the potential to get very ugly.

My own opinion is that Putin may not HAVE a long-term plan, other than to strike opportunistically to increase Russian power.

I'll just add that if Putin were 95% certain that Trump is not going to win thanks to a combination of the amazing stupidity of a populace who seem more bothered by Trump's decade-old remarks than about the outright depravity of the Clintons while in office, massive unopposed vote fraud and open betrayal by the Repuke Party, taking the plunge in a place like Ukraine would make a certain amount of sense - especially if he had the forces available to do it reasonably fast.

It would basically all be over by the time Hillary broke the bottle of champagne over the bow of the soopercarrier USS Hank Johnson to serve as flagship for the Great Pink Fleet.

Agreed, he may not have a long term plan, but Russia has long term interests that have not changed in any appreciable way from a global strategy point of view since Peter the Great.

I don't think he will attack the Baltics or try to reabsorb them. I think he will focus on the Ukraine. Pushing the Baltics around may be too dangerous and it might be easier with the example of the Ukraine to "explain things" to them with.

"Hillary is just another tool of the neocons. She will do as she's told."

The nefarious power of the dark corners may regard her as a tool, but that's not her perception. She is Dr. Janice Lester, the antagonist of the Star Trek episode "Turnabout Intruder".

Like that character, HRC is consumed by a seething hatred of the profound differences between men and women, especially as they entail the pervasive tendency and capacity of men to acquire and maintain political and economic power because she is disinterested in femininity and she is female. She refuses to believe that the differences are real-that they are merely imaginary constructs born of social conventions. Hence her obsession with political power.

However so dedicated to the idea of female power is she that she has spend decades subordinating herself to men. She was junior counsel during Watergate until her lack of ethics got her fired, she was the paid assassin of a little girl on behalf of a rapist, she bore the public indignities of being the wife of a sexually rapacious man, she whored herself by turning oratorical tricks to the Fortune 500 set for money and celebrity; she burnished her resume by being appointed as SOSUS by the man who derailed her candidacy in 2008.

For Hillary, the office of POTUS is the ultimate prize for a lifetime of meretricious subordination to men and the acquisition of power through their association and she will really want to exercise her new toy.

Unfortunately, despite her covetousness,she still will be a parvenu to executive power, unaccustomed to its perils and limits. Power is like wealth, it must come with graduated acquisition, those things must be learned by possession, not observation and proximity; lest the holder become afflicted with the misconception that the wealth or power is unlimited and expendable in rash fits of intemperance.

My great fear is that in order to portray herself as the faux alpha female, she will attempt to make war an old woman's game. Worse, she will be compelled to portray strength to mask her advancing infirmities.

In short, the elite treating a raging inferno as a campfire, if they think she is their tool.

And Russia has a large Islamic minority along with a land border with Arabia. Thus they want Syria because they want the port, they want to shut down any pipeline through Syria, and they want to keep their Islamic minority from getting energetic. Lots of reasons for Russia to get stubborn in Syria even if it isn't the battlefield of choice.

From zerohedge: "Russian Government Officials Told To Immediately Bring Back Children Studying Abroad""Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools ... parents of these same officials ... should also be returned to the motherland. ...

The "recommendation" applies to all: from the administration staff, to regional administratiors, to lawmakers of all levels. Employees of public corporations are also subject to the ordinance. One of the sources said that anyone who fails to act, will find such non-compliance to be a "complicating factor in the furtherance of their public sector career."

That plus this:"This week Russian authorities are conducting massive civil defense training involving 40 million people nationwide. ... The four-day exercise launched on Tuesday includes 200,000 rescue professionals. Almost 50,000 vehicles are part of the drill.

“Our priority during the drill is to train evacuation of the civilian population from potentially-risky areas,” Emergencies Minister Vladimir Puchkov, who oversees all civil defense in Russia, told Interfax. ... Exercises such as these are held annually in Russia since 2012. It is timed to October 4, which is Civil Defense Day in Russia.

This year’s exercise is not exceptional in terms of scale. For example, the drill of 2013 involved over 60 million people."

means the Russians have been preparing for war for four years, and they now are preparing for immediate war of the scale that would lead to the death or internment of Russian nationals abroad and which could result in nuclear strikes against Russian cities.

*

I think your scenario is quite likely, Vox, since the Russians know all the dirt on Hillary, among which what, once it gets more publicity, particularly will disqualify her to stand up to Russia in the eyes of the electorate:" the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers .... Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. ...

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal N.Y. Times, April 23, 2015.

1) I wonder what Europe does if Russia invades Ukraine. If i were a European leader and member of NATO, i would tell the US i am not going to war with Russia over the Ukraine. It has been under Russian control or part of Russia for hundreds of years. I doubt that we have enough leverage over the Europeans to force their hand into a war that could go nuclear, with Europe literally in the middle of it. It could start a 4th generation war in Europe against anything identifiable as American or Jewish.

2) what will China do? I think it would be in their best interests to help Russia stand against the Anglo-Zionist empire. If Russia goes down, China looses an important trading partner and ally of sorts against the Anglo-Zionists. Also, Russia is important to the Silk Road project. If Russia goes down, that could kill the silk road going through Russia.

3) Does Russia have to sacrifice Syria in the game? If so, the Anglo-Zionists and Gulf Arab States probably get their pipeline

4) How does Russia win the information/propaganda war? That seems to be the most important part of the war.

@73 It makes more sense for Putin to go after Ukraine first because they are not in NATO, so NATO countries have no obligation to defend (so theoretically Ukraine would be on their own much like Georgia was back in 2008).

The Baltics would make more sense to take over from a short-term military perspective, but drawing in NATO now would be a huge medium and long-term gamble (not even bringing nuclear war possibility into focus).

A good analysis and all that, but most of it is stuff that is already known, and a lot of it too complex to be adsorbed by a general public that is not paying much attention. So, you know, to quote Hillary, "At this point what difference does it make?"

As for Vox and his analysis and Hillary wanting air control in Syria, this is all getting kind of creepy.

@13: “I'd estimate Russia can take Kiev in 10-14 days. And note that I wrote that before I looked it up and discovered Putin said in 2014 that he can do it in two weeks.”

Though it may seem hard to believe, Putin is actually taking critical fire from his political rivals on the Russian Right. They accuse him of failing to achieve to carve Novorossiya (New Russia) out of eastern Ukraine, as he promised back in early 2014.

Keep your eyes on the price of oil. When Russia invaded northern Georgia in August 2008, oil prices were just coming down off record highs near $147 per barrel. When Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014, oil prices were then at sustained highs above $100 per barrel.

The price of oil has rebounded 15 percent in recent weeks, mainly on the hope that OPEC and Russia will actually cooperate on a production restraint agreement, and is now trading above $50 per barrel. It’s a simple correlation, but when oil prices are high or rising, Putin’s willingness to use military force increases.

Obviously, Russia’s Syria intervention breaks this pattern, indicating that Russia is sufficiently confident in projecting power in other global arenas, thus reaffirming its standing as a global power despite relatively low prices. With oil prices on the upswing, expect more rather than less geostrategic push back from Russia.

More to the geopolitical point, Russia, China, and Iran are basically three “rump empires” with “swords out.” They are escalating their challenge to the U.S. geostrategic position around the edge of the Eurasian land mass, seeking to push U.S. military power away from key areas through the implementation of anti-access/area denial (A2/D2) strategies.

In a naval/maritime sense, what we are witnessing is a loosely coordinated, yet sustained, effort to challenge the U.S. ability to maintain open sea lines of communication in the Baltic Sea and Eastern Mediterranean (Russia), the Strait of Hormuz and possibly the southern Red Sea (Iran), and the South China Sea and Eastern China Sea (China).

In all cases, the vital interests of U.S. allies are at stake, and the ability of the U.S. military to aid these allies during a time of war is being impinged to an extent. And in all cases, the Obama has struggled to maintain a middle course between the extremes of acquiescence and confrontation. This balancing act is getting very difficult to maintain.

In haste, I have every confidence that a President Clinton would pursue a more confrontational course toward Russia, with all perils thereunto pertaining. Trump? Maybe he would pursue a more accommodating approach toward Russia, one that can protect vital U.S. interests while giving Russia its geopolitical due. Maybe that approach could prevent Cold War II and its associated costs, which are likely to be substantial. However, this is a burden that the United States is not currently well suited to carry given our domestic economic and political constraints.

The msm will show Hillary in 2012s (I believe it was) standing ready and preparing war games with North Korea... women will vote for her...

I don't live in a western country more but have access to countries like Switzerland which I may reside in... if you hold a conversation with any native English speaking female, you will very quickly learn of their insanity... I have not spoken to a white woman for some 6 months and even my non-white wife is noticing a pattern of insanity of white women...

Start preparing your enclaves for your offspring if you choose to have it, or for your neighbours children

I'm reminded about how everyone was certain that Putin would never invade Ukraine at all, because this is the 21st century guys, people don't fight wars like that anymore. And furthermore he just hosted the Olympics, I mean come on.

In regard to you first point, this is generally true (especially if you specifically consider government officials in the EU and most European federal leaders), but a year ago a majority of the public of several major EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy specifically) said in a poll that they were opposed to war with Russia even if Russia invaded a neighboring country in NATO. So I think it's safe to presume that the number who would be opposed to intervening on behalf of Ukraine is smaller. Strong public opposition to war at a time where all these countries have such high rates of internal tension due to the migrant and economic crises might preclude NATO countries from fulfilling their NATO obligations, let alone getting involved in an Eastern European conflict outside the boundaries of NATO.

As I understand it, Russia has been in a bear market for 9 years. If so, then that country's populace is ready for a war.

The USA's, OTOH, is sitting atop a manic peak in social mood. The only wars attractive to such complacent people are those that look like "cake walks." Think Grenada.

I don't know how to juxtapose these two conditions. All I know is that using NATO to encircle Russia, in open violation of agreements made when the Berlin Wall fell, looks terrifyingly similar to strategic miscalculations and valueless alliances that preceded and led directly to World War One.

We are ruled by demons, idiots and those rendered pathologically insane by the corruption of power.

Yeah, but I live in Europe and based on my conversations with people here for the past year, those particular polls seem broadly reliable. Lots of people would be very unhappy getting into any war for any reason, let alone a potentially nuclear one with Russia over a corrupt, backwards place like Ukraine.

I like your thinking Vox, except for one small problem: as others have pointed out, Russian military action at this point would throw more women voters to Hillary.

Doesn't matter. Women are ruled, above all, by fear. War with Russia will cause fear of the sort many young women have never known.

* The MSM has painted Hillary as the experienced statesman and Trump as the dumb loud mouth ready to start WW3. I have had multiple women express this exact argument to me. One is a mother whose child recently joined the USAF!

The MSM will go into overdrive amplifying this narrative should Russia make a move. We will have 24/7 talking heads saying: Who do you want to receive the 3am call?

* It's not just Hillary who thinks winning a war means ordering the troops to do something while looking tough. It's most American women, and even a good portion of American men. The American people dangerously overestimate the power of the American military. Simultaneously, we dangerously underestimate the power of other militaries and the costs of a real war.

Remember that the millennials have no living memory of the cold war. They have never feared a nuclear holocaust. All they know is America "winning" with a couple weeks of "action in the middle east" and a handful of news clips.

I think today's American women are as likely, or more likely, to run to the "tough girl" who is going to "stop that mean man" than they are to "that rube who wants to negotiate...and he talked about my vagina!"

tl;dr - you greatly underestimate the stupidity of modern American women.

All of that said...Putin may still decide it's in his best interest to take Ukraine now if he believes Hillary will win and will force Ukraine into NATO.

Putin is probably just fine with the current situation. The US are almost irreparably divided and whoever the next president is will lack legitimacy in the eyes of the opposition. NATO countries won't be able to agree on resisting Russia. Putin, by helping right-wing movements in several countries, made it happen.Russians always say that the West is fascist. They are very proud of the role they played in defending against fascism during WWII. If Trump, Le Pen, etc. win, Putin can just play the fascist card again, at least for the domestic audience. If Clinton wins, Putin can probably play the godless homosexual card. It's a win-win situation.Whenever someone uses the fall of the Soviet Union to show that communism doesn't work in practice, communists will be able to point to the fall of the US to show that capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, etc. don't work either. Everyone will "understand" this argument, after having it explained by the left-wing US media, the Chinese media, the Russian media, etc.. People who keep insisting that they know a better version of -ism that works and that it's the fault of the evil US elites who didn't implement -ism properly will be called fanatic and nostalgic and ostracized.It would have a nice symmetry with the fall of the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union, which Putin probably wants to avenge. Being a Soviet agent in Eastern Germany as communism fell down was, I guess, a very humiliating experience and living in 90's Russia even more so.The trick for Putin is to do it without resorting to full-scale war. This is not the right time to strike; the right time will be after the US and NATO are proved to be just paper tigers. Then he'll be able to obtain huge concessions by using the same strength, practically unopposed.Of course, the US mostly brought this upon themselves. Putin only helped a little bit. He couldn't have done it if many Americans weren't already rooting for the defeat and destruction of the US, starting with the Vietnam war.Some people here seem to think that Putin is more than just a circumstantial ally, because he thinks like them. I really doubt that, but hope they're right.

FWIW, my prediction remains unchanged. Heritage America is facing an existential threat from mass immivasion, and I believe it is a category error to imagine that even 24/7 propaganda can make people go "oh well, I guess I'll just give up the nice white country I inherited and leave my posterity Brazil North instead, because a Jew called Trump a poopyhead."

They might be persuaded to put the decision off, but when it becomes now or never on the 8th, then they will know what they really think. We are about to witness the limits of corporate media power.

Such a gamble could give Obama indefinite presidency, he simply plays the state of emergency card and calls off the elections till peacetime which as we all know will never come.

Ha, no. Obama is one of the most hated men in the world. He is protected not by the Secret Service, but by his democratic legitimacy. If he suspended the election, then he wouldn't live to February, and I'm sure he knows it.

RobertT wrote:It's far from settled whether the U.S. could win a war with Putin's Russia.

We can outspend Russia many times over, thus if the war were hardware and we were committed we would win eventually. It would only be a matter of time. That is why I think they just might go nuclear. They would have to. If you can help it, not good to push a nuclear power into a corner.

But a ground war in Eastern Europe. A crazy idea for us to even think about it, and I doubt the population would go along with the body count.

Just for the record, I think the Bush stuff in Georgia was even crazier than what we are doing now.

From what I have seen, Trump is not looking very likely to pull it off. One caveat, I haven't been able to "dig deeply" this election cycle, so if you are seeing something I am not feel free to blast me. What i have seen in dribs and drabs is that most of the white GOP voters are getting guilted into not voting for Trump.

VFM #7916 wrote:This last is interesting. Would the objective be an in-and-out smash of leadership, then leave Ukraine? Arm anti-fascist militias and let them fight for their country ala Donbas?

This would be more acceptable and less risky than an out and out occupation, and would allow for a buffer state creation on the east as the west tries to seize western ukraine.Putin's goals will certainly include partition of Ukraine. The plight of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine is a domestic political issue that he wants very much to resolve. This would also resolve the problems Russia currently has with Crimean logistics.Occupation and re-Sovietization are simply not on the table. The Ukrainian population is too anti-Russian, and just as ruthless, tough, sly and murderous, just as Slavic, as the Russians.My money would be on the "go in, kill the bastards running the place, impose a Donbas cease-fier and leave" approach. IT would give Putin and the Russians everything they want, with the least risk and the least cost.

@93 "It's far from settled whether the U.S. could win a war with Putin's Russia." It's pretty clear that the US couldn't win such a conventional war in the Ukraine, Russia's backyard. The Navy would be useless, and Russia's conventional army, reserves, and armaments are superior...Furthermore, Russia has made it clear that any successful incursions into Russian territory would be met with tactical nukes, of which they have many and the US has few.

@108 I think the State Dept's neo-Nazi mercenaries in the Ukraine would flee the Russians, leaving very little resistance. Mercenaries understand very well that money is useless if you're dead, and there will be no mercy after their atrocities in the Donbass...

VD: Bringing Russian students home is what worries me. It is as if Putin wants to avoid having Russian children killed by Russian nukes.

If only N.Y. and D.C. were taken out, do you believe the U.S. military would risk retaliation and having 100 more cities and military installations vaporized? Also, nuclear U.K. and France will not be sparred.

Hi rob, I like your positivity and agree with your optimism... I don't think the west could win a war.... but will probably destroy Russia and do to putin as they did to ghaddifi before the whole of Eastern Europe destabilises and the west bankrupts itself and is completely open to Islam invasion (maybe even possible if the Islamic armies were armed with spoons instead of scimitars at this point)

The polls are being rigged and they voter fraud to a close race and a very minor Trump win. Thus giving both Dems and R's a chance to claim Trump didn't have a mandate and stonewall him through four years.

This all assumes that Russia doesn't actually have this super EMP weapon that we keep reading about. If they have the ability to shut everything here off with one fell swoop, all of the sudden war with the US doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Don't know about a "super EMP weapon", but the bog standard 3 warhead EMP strike on the CONUS would almost certainly kill most of the American population after a few weeks or months (first lack of water, then food, and winter's coming and so on). It's hard to see our not striking back in serious, decisive ways, including a "never give up" campaign on Putin himself like we did when Osama bin Laden killed a mere 3,000 people.

This sort of strike only strikes me, so to say, likely for an adversary with a much smaller strategic nuclear inventory, the PRC in particular.

@104 - We can outspend Russia many times over, thus if the war were hardware and we were committed we would win eventually.

Where are you getting this? We have $20T in debt, a $1.4T deficit, and most of our factories are in China.

Plus the vast majority of millennials are completely unfit to either serve or work on an assembly line producing weapons.

How do we "outspend" Russia in a sustained conventional war? Don't think about the dollars you believe the Fed can print. Think in terms of the resources those dollars are supposed to obtain.

That is why I think they just might go nuclear. They would have to. If you can help it, not good to push a nuclear power into a corner.

I think they would be likely to go nuclear first for other reasons. But try convincing sick old Hillary that her judgement shouldn't be shaped entirely by the same temper that causes her to lash out at the very Secret Service men who protect her.

That old bat might launch an airstrike because someone insulted her choice of pantsuit.

I live in England, and for the first time last night I literally prayed hat Trump will win the election.

As for Putin, he's more likely to do something in Syria in my opinion, such as shooting down a US jet. Something that can be justified, and that will show the world that the US is impotent these days (which it is).

My gaming it out, Putin builds up Clinton as shoe in winner and enemy to Russia which sounds good to the gals in our establishment (they're all womanish) Then Putin could literally say Russia initiated war in the Ukraine because Obama is a known weakling and his succesor the war mongering Clinton will be much worse.

Clinton then hides behind the weakling for two weeks or comes out and begins to shrink and age while she campaigns and if she does not campaign then Trump roasts her as an incompetent and not up to the job.

Why is it libertarians like Vox Day and others love strongmen like Vladimir Putin and President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who has killed thousands of his countrymen because they're drug addicts?

Jordi wrote:I see Russia's current policy as very patient and defensive, making no risky move. I don't see the big bear rushing in such a gamble

Agreed. One thing a lot of yanks/euros/neocons get wrong is they think Putin's playing a globalist game. He isn't. He's doing the olde Russian Empire game - incremental expansion a la Peter The Great, Catherine, etc.

There seems to be overestimation of Putin in the wrong areas ("KGB thug") with a complete underestimation in the important areas (great game strategy, historical knowledge, awareness of political arena).

This is the US and EU's stupid gamble to prevent nationalism and breakage from their goofy unions.

Do our current "leaders" completely ignore the fact that two of the most successful armies in history were annihilated by Russia? Do they not know that most of Europe's economy is dependent on Russian gas and metal, largely due to the EU?

With either candidate, NATO and the EU are toast. It's just picking which method will have more bloodshed.

We can outspend Russia many times overThis lasts exactly as long as US debt (IOU-dollars) continue to be trusted (credited) throughout the world.

This gets to the question of "Why is the USA able to float a seemingly infinite amount of 'we'll pay you back, someday...' when the mathematics of it simply don't work?"

The answer is IMO based on the perception of the size and persistence of the US economy, which is also a product of mass psychology. After all, a whole lot of the USA's economy now is restaurants and landscaping (services,) not to mention trading promises back and forth (the FIRE economy.) All of that can wink out of existence in a day. So much for persistence.

All the signs already exist that the USA teeters on the same fulcrum as the USSR did in 1989-1991. Here today, GONE TOMORROW, notwithstanding mountains of "studies" and "everyone knows" to the contrary.

Am I alone in believing that Obama, Clinton and all their surrounding sycophants are told only what they want to hear from the politicians-in-the-Pentagon? (i.e., the Joint Chiefs)

Cooler heads don't climb the ladder. Reasonable people don't support the idiocy of the Social Justice Armed Services. This informs me that above a certain threshold, the only data flowing into the Oval Office and discussed by "serious Political Operatives" is that which confirms their biases and their illusions.

This is a phenomenally dangerous time. OTOH, if this is bad, no matter who is in power when it happens, it will be a million times worse when the DJIA is down, passes the 2009 lows and just keeps going as interest rates rapidly rise and FOMC members are at a loss to stop them.

I just returned from Russia and the retired military people we meet with are worried about war if Hillary is elected. A random guy working at top burger asks why do you hate us? Why do we? Russia is far more prepared than we are.

I agree we have more debt than we should, and so do a lot of other countries. By all appearances we are headed for a credit blowout, the only problem is figuring out when.

The thing is, how much you can borrow depends on confidence. Because war spending has the appearance of being temporary and is therefore unlikely to undermine confidence as much as the steady state stuff. For that reason I doubt a burst of war spending would kill our credit. Plus there are a lot of teetering countries right now that need the export earnings and can ill afford to stop accepting payment in dollars.

We are the big tree in the forest. When we go down we are going to pull a lot of other ones down with us. Nobody is going to want that so the political class will do the usual thing, keep the craziness going as long as they can. And that I suspect would be long enough for us to get through a war with Russia, should we be crazy enough to go that route given the current low level of provocation.

The polls are being rigged and they voter fraud to a close race and a very minor Trump win.

The simplest explanation is that the progressives have won. They can manipulate opinion at will. Objectively, based on various polls, 60% or more of the country agrees with Trump on major issues such as trade, immigration and foreign policy. Yet "the Cathedral" has manipulated opinion into a roughly 60-40 vote against Trump by painting him as anti-woman.

"On Tuesday afternoon, a joint NBC/WSJ poll revealed the first official polling results following Sunday's contentious debate. It found that in a 4 way race, Hillary Clinton held on to a 9 point lead over Donald Trump, with the support of 46% of likely voters, while Trump has 37%, Gary Johnson has 8% and Jill Stein has 2%."

Okay, but...

"Before the debate, 67 percent of Republicans said that GOP House and Senate candidates should back Trump, a share that has now increased to nearly three-quarters - 74 percent, including 83 percent of Republicans reached post-debate on Monday."

Republicans are rallying around Trump because of the ass-kicking he administered to Hillary.

"In yet another poll the distribution of the of those questioned leans substantially to the left, as follows:

For a candidate as polarizing as Trump, having a 7 point disadvantage off the bat purely as a result of the poll's construction, will certainly have an adverse impact."

This poll already gives Hillary a 7-point head start. So if she's reported as being 9 points ahead, she's actually only about 2 points ahead.

The media, as usual, is lying through their teeth and obfuscating the truth as much as possible. And in fact, on Monday, the media didn't really report on what happened during the debate at all, except to spin it as a negative for Trump despite his winning it handily.

Why is it libertarians like Vox Day and others love strongmen like Vladimir Putin and President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who has killed thousands of his countrymen because they're drug addicts?

Because we're nationalist libertarians. Putin and Duterte are much to be preferred to the likes of Merkel, Holland, Obama, and Clinton.

@119 ...and President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who has killed thousands of his countrymen because they're drug addicts?

So? We kill hundreds of "our own people" every year because they are criminals. His reason is just as valid as ours. Be more inclusive about foreign cultures and standards of law enforcement you bigot.

Johnny wrote:We can outspend Russia many times over, thus if the war were hardware and we were committed we would win eventually. It would only be a matter of time.

Agreed on the land war.

However, the US only has funny money. Russia quietly reverted to metal-backed currency a couple years ago.

The only way the US could "win" in a war with Russia is a quick knockout and installation of opposition party in Moscow. Interestingly enough, the main political opponents of Putin and the nationalists in Russia are the Communist Party and other socialists, which Clinton and the Globalistas would desire above all else.

But the economies of the EU and US are in freefall, basically only held up by black markets and fictional money. Russia trades natural resources, has backed currency, and a massive land mass to draw in opponents. A long drawn out war is really what they want.

Why is it libertarians like Vox Day and others love strongmen like Vladimir Putin and President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines who has killed thousands of his countrymen because they're drug addicts?

Northstream gas pipeline is in operation straight to Germany and bypasses Eastern Europe so Putin can play divide and conquer with Germany and others on the flow While Ukraine would be on the tail end of the reverse flow and no doubt cut the hell off.

A few years ago the clown establishment was searching for answers on how to cut Russia out of the loop (this was pre-Syria and that pipeline proposal) and reverse flow was one idea floated that go less support then Trump at Salon the Hagmag.

Fascinating, but horrifying because this makes sense; what is the cost of Russia attacking Ukraine, especially this far into the coup? I remember reading that it would be extremely costly a few years ago, but the regime is mostly in tatters now.

In the modern world, a long drawn out war benefits no one. Not us. Not the Russians. Only a crazy man would suggest such a thing. That is why in the 20th century, all the good wars were started with wildly optimistically short projected durations leading to total victory. War impoverishes every nation that participates. This has been true ever since war stopped being about looting the defeated enemy and ransoming his captured knights back to him.

I just thought, has anyone else considered what will happen in Iran? Obama betrayed the Iranian people in 2009 during their revolution.

With a Trump/Putin understanding, I could see them making sure the Ayatollahs are a memory. They may have some semblance of stability, but their militancy is suspect in the grand scheme, much like Erdogan's.

And then there's Turkey, too.

Just wondering what the rest of the ilk thinks about those potential wildcards in the event of a US/Russia war.

A couple of years ago the US had a few hundred military contractors in Ukraine, and last year 300 troops from the 173rd Airborne were sent there to train Ukrainians. I don't find any more recent information than that, so I would assume we still have at least 1000 military personnel (including contractors) there.

genericviews wrote:In the modern world, a long drawn out war benefits no one. Not us. Not the Russians. Only a crazy man would suggest such a thing.

I type excitedly from time to time ;)

It may not be their desire as such, but it is something they are better suited for and tends to work to their advantage, if a ground war is present. Even a proxy war.

In the current situation, a fortress Russia is much better prepared for a long war than the overextended, globe-dependent US or indirectly Russia-dependent EU. It's not GOOD for Russia by any means, but they would emerge in better shape overall.

If Russia enters Ukraine, Trump can win with one statement. "Right now I can admit that I don't know what is going to happen with regards to Russia; but, I can assure American moms and dads of one thing, your daughters are not going to war!"

I don't see a war as a likely scenario to avoid a war. I don't think Putin wants a second first world war. More likely is Putin using the US fear mongering to it's advantage.Imagine Putin having a press conference, in English, in which he hints before hand at a big hack reveal (ala Assange).

Then he should just straight up announce that he plans on influencing the US election with a color revolution (maybe teal), stating something to the effect that Hillary and her foreign policy WILL lead to a third world war. That he, for the sake of the Russian people can not and will not back down. But Hillary, in an insane bid to enrich herself WILL end peace in the world. Then he gives the dirt on Hillary. He ends by calling on all true American patriots to vote Trump and wear the colored armbands.

I believe an event of this nature will force the American media to address Russia in a much more sober manner. They just had a foreign leader warn that their will be war if nothing is done to avoid one. So Putin looks strong, Hillary looks insane, and it's possible that normies might look at shit like the orange/rose revs and the Arab spring with a new focus.

Like all actions there is risk, Putin might look weak, Trump might look weak, Hillary might look strong. If successful Putin becomes the worldwide peace candidate, Trump is shown to be the steady handed negotiator, Hillary and the (((neo-cons))) are repudiated.

Mr.MantraMan wrote:Northstream gas pipeline is in operation straight to Germany and bypasses Eastern Europe so Putin can play divide and conquer with Germany and others on the flow While Ukraine would be on the tail end of the reverse flow and no doubt cut the hell off.

A few years ago the clown establishment was searching for answers on how to cut Russia out of the loop (this was pre-Syria and that pipeline proposal) and reverse flow was one idea floated that go less support then Trump at Salon the Hagmag.

Sir, do you have a link you can send me to extrapolate on your assertion as posted>

WIW, my prediction remains unchanged. Heritage America is facing an existential threat from mass immivasion, and I believe it is a category error to imagine that even 24/7 propaganda can make people go "oh well, I guess I'll just give up the nice white country I inherited and leave my posterity Brazil North instead, because a Jew called Trump a poopyhead."

They might be persuaded to put the decision off, but when it becomes now or never on the 8th, then they will know what they really think. We are about to witness the limits of corporate media power.

I think the enemy considers that a real possibility, and part of the media blitz now is so that if above-and-beyond levels of fraud are required, they'll have the cushion of "Come on now, we've spent WEEKS pointing out everyone is abandoning Trump. Why wouldn't you believe this?"

If not cheeringly, then begrudgingly. SJWs are hollow people, filled only with what the Academic Faction has filled them. If Social Justice demands a war against the racist and sexist fascistic Putin, then people other than themselves will go off to die for the cause.

Remember how all the war protests in the US died after January 2009? I do. Or as they say, "principals, not principles."

If Russia was to mount a campaign against the Ukraine, it would be to make the new eastern border of the Russia to be the Dnieper river, with a small bridgehead over the river in the Nikopol region. Such a campaign would :

1) give Russia a very definable western border.2) pull in the industrial region of the Ukraine with a large Russian population.3) give Russia a land route to the Crimea4) Give Russia the large hydroelectric works and electric sources from the Nikopol region dams.5) give Russia the largest Manganese mines in Europe, second largest in the world. Manganese is one of the alloys you need for steel.6) bring back into the soviet union the many industrial enterprises in the Dnipropetrovsk region.7) put Russia so close to Kiev that Kiev will likely never consider being part of NATO. It would be the same if the US occupied southern Ontario up to Ottawa, then allowed Canada to be independent. Independent but certainly aligned with the US, regardless of all else.

Not Saying Vox is right, but Putin is in an odd situation. To restore Russia he needs more population, more Russians who are willing to have families. Because of the culture of corruption, only large enterprises that extract wealth from the ground, or are based on large government sanctioned enterprises (weapons, oil, power, mining ). Such a land grab would likely be advantageous in the long run. Keeping the Ukraine in a Russian orbit is needed to have the minimum market to allow Russia to resist being drawn into the western banker system.

Not a bad gamble, though it may have nothing to do with influencing the US election, simply taking advantage of the it and the internals issues Europe is having at the moment.

As far as the Baltic republics go, the idea for Putin is to induce fear and hope that he republics continue their strategy of kicking out ethnic Russians. Russia wants them and the republics do not. Ethnic cleansing works to both sides aid.

Concerning big crowds at political rallies-I used to think it was a god indicator of support but I no longer do. Bernie sanders got big crowds and he is not a final candidate for president. Crowds show intensity of some supporters it does not show breath

I agree that Putin would find a local war started by himself preferable to a global war started by Hillary. But if elected Hillary would escalate the conflict immediately, and most people have been succesfully brainwashed by the media so that they could come to think of Hillary as an adeguate wartime presidentess.The Long Defeat never ceases.

@13 I looked it up and discovered Putin said in 2014 that he can do it in two weeks.

Except that is old news as the Ukrainian army has been in combat steadily for the last 2 years.

Note that even the rag tag ad hoc civilian forces stopped the Russians in East Ukraine in 2014.

Now they actually have an army that has been bled, has good leadership (with Western training and the Russian plants kicked out), and modern weapons.

Putin may well get his head handed to him in Ukraine.

Also note that it is Russia that is gearing up for war, rattling the sabers, etc. They are the clear aggressive party. Looks like Shirreff's War With Russia 2017 may kick of early - but if it does in 2016 they don't have a lot of time before winter.

I live in Utah, and, because Donald Trump said something sleazy 11 years ago, the Mormons, will never, ever vote for him. Russia could invade Ukraine and Hillary promise a nuclear reprisal, with Trump saying he'd negotiate for peace, and the Mormons would not vote for him.

OH, yea the strategy: advance to Dnieper river and stop. If need be negotiate a pull back in the northern area, but keep to the east banks of the Dnieper 50 miles south of Kiev, around the bend of the Dnieper to the Donbas region.

@135: Russia, Iran, Qatar, and Azerbaijan have loads of gas. Europe wants to diversify its sources of imported gas away from Russia. Russia wants to maintain market share while building pipelines that bypass old Warsaw Pact allies (like Poland) and Ukraine. Russia wants to expand the existing Nordstream gas pipeline to Germany, which Poland and the U.S. oppose.

Russia similarly wants to bypass Ukraine and finalized the deal for a Black Sea natgas pipeline to Turkey. The EU and U.S. support a competing scheme, the Southern Corridor, to carry Azeri gas through Turkey into Europe. Yes, it gets confusing.

As for the Middle East, Qatar and Iran have floated competing proposal for overland gas pipelines through Iraq and Syria to the Med Coast. However, these projects are effectively blocked by the interminable fighting in Iraq and Syria. And Putin laughing, spreads his wings.

Iran is coming late to the gas game, and it is now pushing a gas pipeline to Oman and an existing LNG facility there that Iran could use to export its gas in quantity.

If Putin took Kiev, would him releasing video of Joe Biden's cocaine snorting son, in charge of the Ukraine's petrol reserves, being penetrated by a dog matter, if the video was shot before he moved to the Ukraine?

Putin could get tough in his rhetoric; "That woman want's war! Not negotiation!"

I posted before about Russian TV endorsing Crooked Eye because she left top secrete documents in Moscow.

OT: The jews are infiltrating the Catholic church trying to push insurrection:

You don't need WikiLeaks to know that just Martin Luther's door note.

"Women are not going to elect a female wartime president. And the military HATES her."

Lots of them think pussy power will let them jump up in the air and kick 8 men off their feet. Then they wonder why girls are bad at STEM.

Doesn't matter. Women are ruled, above all, by fear. War with Russia will cause fear of the sort many young women have never known.

I live in Utah, and, because Donald Trump said something sleazy 11 years ago, the Mormons, will never, ever vote for him. Russia could invade Ukraine and Hillary promise a nuclear reprisal, with Trump saying he'd negotiate for peace, and the Mormons would not vote for him.

@JISomething tells me that Mormons will switch from Republican to Democrat soon, especially if the Republican Party fills up with people taking Trump's positions on things.

" Mr.MantraMan October 12, 2016 2:31 PM I think an optional goal of Putin is the destabilization Saudi Arabia, shared by the Persians which would be a huge energy sink for the American establishment trying to put Arab eggs back together."

Already being done with Yemen. Saudi is having lots of problems on that border. It's costing lots.

The Houthis videos of their ambushes on Suadi army patrol vehicles are pretty funny. Four Houthis open fire on three lightly armored Saudi jeeps that have turret mounted weapons on them. The lead vehicle stops or is stopped by the weapons fire, the other two vehicles can't get around because the mountain road is too narrow. All of the uninjured Saudi soldiers get out of their vehicles and run away around the bend in the in the road. The Houthis keep firing for several minutes. Soon the fuel tanks for two vehicles are pierced and they catch on fire. All vehicles eventually burn.

Regarding the polling numbers and press - remember that state operated presses are part of the Enemy. They will engage in PsyOps whenever they can.

Hillary up 9 points after a devastating debate? Unlikely. Debates are marginal in their convincing. Even AUDIOGATE will convince a few cucks on the sidelines.

Also, note how much the media buried vote/election fraud in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014...but now all these stories make it even to local affiliates?

It's supposed to make us despair and give up.

I'm under no illusion that the Trump will fix all ills, but it will abate some damage and buy us time, which is what we really need. Especially considering that TPTB basically are more than doubling-down on their overall strategy since autumn of 2015.

@177So who will they vote for? Gary Johnson? Or will they just vote downballot and leave the President vote blank?

@177 @182It would be monumentally stupid for the Mormons to switch to the D's at this time. They don't have the (((money))) or the votes to make any difference in D policy, so they'd be endorsing pretty much everything they officially oppose from gay marriage to abortion on demand. It would look mighty hypocritical.

Like Vox says, don't overestimate their intellect. They did, historically, fall for some pretty transparent charlatanry (from a guy jailed for being a con-man, no less).

However, you do have a point with the abortion thing (I'm opposed to it, personally) as a single-issue with a lot of "conservatives." Shoot, for many of them, Paul Ryan could sell out the whole country as long as he promises to throw raspberries at Planned Parenthood.

They really aren't reliable though. I've heard and read more than a few "conservatives" wanting to vote Hillary because "she won't really do any harm anyway." Ugh.

Vox: logic would dictate that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will begin the weekend after next, most likely on the morning of October 23rd...

I think it is high time we address the truly important question here. If we take this as a serious possibility, how can I make some money on it in the stock market? I mean, you know, never let a crisis go to waste.

So Vox how unconfident are you. Is a Trump win still plausible or should I accelerate my acquisition of essentials.

It's certainly plausible. But the fact that more potential voters are swayed by a few trivial comments 10 years ago than a candidate literally collapsing is not a good sign and tends to indicate that even if Trump wins, it won't matter.

No electorate that stupid is going to survive long, one way or another.

Johnny wrote:I think it is high time we address the truly important question here. If we take this as a serious possibility, how can I make some money on it in the stock market? I mean, you know, never let a crisis go to waste

@139 We have a winner. The Left learned over the last 30 years something the Republicans have not. Facts, history, logic, reasoning, and all of the other things rational people at least attempt to do doesn't really matter. If you can persuade someone through a series of techniques and emotional manipulations you win, facts be damned.

There's actually quite a bit of science backing this up now, and the truth of the matter is that most of us rationalize our emotional decisions by stuffing reasons into the mix after we decide something.

Emotions are more powerful than logic. Rhetoric wins almost every time. How people feel about a candidate counts the most.

The other big pill the traditional right including the alt-right doesn't want to swallow is that the left not only knows it better, they literally are better at it when they do it. The only reason they don't completely rule the world is that their policies fail so often that eventually the facts can't be avoided by most people regardless of their emotions.